(May 25, 2015 at 10:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

And why hasn't Randy done due diligence in disproving them all, as well?

(May 25, 2015 at 10:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well.  If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims."  And where is his proof?

Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist.  A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind.  Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take.  It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.


This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true.  For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.


The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism.  His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.

___________________________
I see Parkers Tan beat me to this.

(May 25, 2015 at 10:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: First, it is possible to prove a negative. Show me a four-sided triangle...or prove to me that you can't. You CAN do it...tt's a philosophical proof based on contradiction.  Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

I let this idiocy pass earlier, but I'll take a crack at it now.  You haven't proven that there are no four-sided triangles.  Triangles are by definition three sided two dimensional shapes.  Saying there aren't any four sided ones is merely an agreement as to the definition.  There are no married bachelors either, or virgins who've had sex, or three sided squares. 

But, and here's the kicker, the "proof" you offer that there aren't four sided triangles is:  "show me a four sided triangle."  To which I say exactly.  That's what having the burden of proof means.  It means being the person who must bring forward evidence.  No evidence of a lack of four sided triangles can be produced.  Therefore anyone claiming there are such things has the burden of proof to show a four sided triangle. 

I'll prove there is no god the same way you purport to prove there are no four sided triangles:  show me god or I'll assume there isn't one.  Which is by the way, exactly my position.  I do not accept claims for which there is inadequate evidence.  Nor do I take the time to investigate all claims.  I could spend my life trying to find out if there are unicorns, alien abductions, ghosts, esp, etc.  I don't have the time.  And I see no reason to make time for the god claim.

Ditto the resurrection:  show me convincing evidence of the resurrection and I'll believe it.  Otherwise not.

Besides, I have investigated the god claim before, which is to say I grew up in a very Christian household, have read the Bible, have read numerous theologians, philosophers, and historians concerning not only the Christian god but others as well.  I have seen no evidence of god sufficient to make a ten dollar bet let alone spend my life in worship.  You have produced nothing new in this thread, and haven't even reached the better arguments (weak as they are).

I'm not going to go through it all again, but quite simply, the chances of the accounts being accurate I would say is well below 1%. So far below as to be negligible in fact. I would bet my life against £100 that if we could go back and see what happened, it would be significantly if not entirely different to the accounts. Yes, I mean that. The evidence is that weak.

The amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether it is true. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy. If this was the case, both Christianity and Islam would have to be true, because "all those millions can't be wrong." They can be wrong. By definition, at least one of those groups is wrong. I just happen to think it's most likely they are both wrong.

With claims this extraordinary, the evidence you need in order to be convincing must be similarly extraordinary. And it is not. It is really poor in fact. I don't believe you would accept similar levels of evidence for anything else besides religion, and not even from other religions.

There are huge numbers of perfectly reasonable explanations as to why we may have such accounts, that require extremely little in the way of assumptions. To decide that it really happening is the most likely requires a whole host of unprecedented and unfounded assumptions.

---

I don't think Christianity is a joke, but I do think it's a very elaborate con at its core. I couldn't be more sure that it is nonsense. I can't and won't claim absolute certainty, because there is always room for unbelievable cosmic coincidences and yet unknown information and evidence.

I honestly think that if you could see things the way I do, you would agree with me. But you are so tightly wrapped up in it, and so used to thinking beyond doubt it is true, that you just can't objectively analyse it. I'm not criticising, it's just the facts as I see them. If you'd been raised Muslim, you'd be making the same sort of arguments and professing just as heartily that Islam was the one and only true faith. Statistically, that is the case. To us atheists, it all sounds the same.

A couple of points before I move on.

(May 25, 2015 at 10:09 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 25, 2015 at 6:58 am)Randy Carson Wrote: People are willing to die for either of those. What I reject is the idea that eleven apostles all died for something that they knew was a lie.

I've been on vacation for the last week and so have missed the last 20 pages of discussion. However, I believe I did predict that this, the die-for-a-lie argument, would be the conclusion of your long-winded and often copied and pasted "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus. I hope it will not surprise you that we've all heard this argument many times before.

Point #1
Since you admittedly missed the discussion an "only skimmed" the thread, then you do not realize that my statement which you quoted above was NOT the summation of my defense of Christianity but a specific response to a specific poster.

The "die-for-a-lie" point (as you call it) is one of the pieces of evidence in support the the HRotNT, but not the apex or summation of the argument. Keep that in mind.

Point #2
All of my OP was written by me and NOT copy and pasted. Don't be rude.

Okay...where were we? Ah...

Quote:In fact, you've not only failed but done so spectacularly. 

Let me sum it up for you:

1. You made an extraordinary, to say the least, claim (the resurrection)
2. You offer philosophical arguments (which is not even evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence)
3. You offer some alleged eye-witness accounts (which is weak evidence at best).

Gee, I don't recall offering much in the way of defense of the resurrection in this thread at all. Tangentially, perhaps. But did I talk about Josephus or the Roman Guard or any of that stuff. 'Cause if I was REALLY discussing the evidence for the resurrection, I wouldn;t have forgotten to go into all that detail.

No, THIS thread was supposed to be about the Historic...oh, read the subject line for yourself.

So, beginning with the suddenly deflated assumption that I have failed SPECTACULARLY to do something I have not even really set my mind to in this thread, let's see what other "analysis" you might have to offer of my posts.

Quote:Analysis: 

Yes, Eye-Witness Accounts is the Weakest Form of Evidence
In a court of law, eye-witness accounts is one of the weakest forms of evidence if not THE weakest. 

In science, eye-witness testimony is virtually useless.

Understandably so. In science, experiments are either replicable or they aren't. But here is where things start to get surreal.

On the one hand, deniers such as yourself like to point out that LOTS of people have been raised from the dead. Consequently, there is nothing special about Jesus. Well, hello? If resurrection from the dead is possible, then that makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead a little more palatable, doesn't it? It's been replicated.

On the other hand, if resurrection does not and has not EVER occurred, then I should pay no attention to the members of this forum who like to trot out the claims of Horus and others who have allegedly been raised from the dead, right?

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Now, about your eye-witness testimony. Yeah, I agree with you to some degree. Cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace (author of Cold-Case Christianity) says that he would RATHER work from circumstantial evidence because eye-witnesses can lie. And he has dozens of court convictions based on nothing BUT circumstantial evidence.

So, why would this former atheist argue that the authors of the NT are valid witnesses? Precisely because they were willing to die for what they knew - not what they believed. That doesn't happen in your typical murder trial.

Quote:Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why:

Sorry. Until I am allowed to link and post stuff like this, I'm not going to view or respond because I cannot respond in kind. Forum rules and all that. You understand, I'm sure.

Quote:Having established that, let's go on to the assumption underlying the crux of your argument: They claimed it, they died for it, so it must be true.

I'm special pleading? You spent several minutes typing up examples of the most outrageous nut-jobs in recent memory who were willing to die for their causes then accuse ME of special pleading? Do you find David Koresh to be a typical example of the kind of person you would expect to meet every day? Seriously?

Wrapping this up...

Quote:And we know that Paul or any of the original disciples were any more sane how? Because they attracted followers? So did these modern cults. Because they were willing to die themselves? So were the leaders of these modern cults. Because they "knew" the Truth? The leaders of these modern cults seemed pretty convinced, putting aside the problematic assumption that we can "know" what ancient people "knew", or anyone else even in the modern day for that matter. What was really going through the mind of David Koresh in his last days? Or Jim Jones? 

Right. Peter was just like that Koresh fellow. James, too. And John was a dead ringer for Jim Jones. Thaddeus. Bartholomew. Andrew. Simon. Jude. Matthew. Oh, and Thomas...he was slow to come to the party, wasn't he? But he did. Along with Philip.

Viewed that way, that's amazing. Most of the cults that you mentioned had only one certifiably psychotic leader, but Christianity got stuck with Eleven right from the get-go.

Oh, and Paul. He hated Christians. Until he became one. Go figure.

And Luke, and Timothy, Titus, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus...well, the list of mentally disturbed is just endless, isn't it?

Quote:And all of this is to accept at face value that these early Christian founders, who knew and spoke with Jesus, actually did die for their beliefs, that they were offered the chance to renounce their beliefs and chose death instead. How do we know this? The folklore says so? You use folklore to prove mythology?

Nope. Just facts. Historical evidence. Stuff like that.

Quote:If that's all, my next post will go step-by-step to show why:

1. They weren't witnesses.
2. Their testimony wasn't reliable.
3. We do know of alterations to the Gospels.
4. They can't get their story straight.

See you next time.

Should be a hoot.

---

[quote='Randy Carson' pid='951429' dateline='1432568170']
A couple of points before I move on.

(May 25, 2015 at 10:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: First, it is possible to prove a negative. Show me a four-sided triangle...or prove to me that you can't. You CAN do it...tt's a philosophical proof based on contradiction.  Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

Out of interest, how do you prove to someone, categorically, that you cannot ever, in any conceivable sense, produce something? How do you do that?

Quote:Second, as I have pointed out in this thread or elsewhere, in science and philosophy, the person claiming that X does not exist has the equal burden of proving his claim.

This is a point that requires a little more explanation than you've given. In a very basic way I agree, as the claim "X does not exist," whatever X is, is itself an ontologically positive claim. However, in this discussion I doubt you'll find so much as a single atheist that's actually making that claim, either. For the majority of us here- I won't speak for everyone but I've been around these people long enough to get the gist- atheism is little more than a position on the claim you and other theists are making, not its own distinct claim: you are stating that god exists, and we are stating that we don't believe that claim due to a lack of evidence. This is not the same as saying no gods exist, it is the entirely rational practice of not accepting claims that are lacking in evidence, yours included. Why, after all, would we want to overreach by making the claim that no gods exist? How could we know that, or know anywhere near enough, to make that claim? It'd be irrational to do so, though it would be equally irrational to accept the premise that there is a god based on the evidence currently available to us, too.

Now, if you accept what I'm saying here, then obviously you'll have to drop this idea that we have a burden of proof, because that doesn't apply to our case, nor the case of any modern atheist. You could, conversely, try to argue that actually our position is the "there is no god" claim, but I doubt many of us would take kindly to an argument-by-fiat-redefinition-of-the-opposing-position, and in fact that would be hugely presumptuous of you to do that; if you're not planning to that's fine, but others have, so I need to cover my bases.

The other potential counter-argument is to claim that lacking a belief in a claim entails a burden of proof to disprove it too, but that would be ridiculous, because it would put you in the position of being obligated to accept a literal infinity of other fictional claims by fiat, or you'd be forced to disprove them all, even where they are completely unfalsifiable. It's a rabbit hole of claims you'd never leave, and it's a direct consequence of that argument, so maybe don't use it.

Quote:Since science has nothing to say about an immaterial God other than, "No, John, I'm not picking anything up on my scanners, either.", we're into philosophy.

Nope. Nuh uh. "Science cannot detect this, therefore it is provable via philosophy" is not an apt syllogism, there's a huge gap in the middle there that you're not filling with anything other than your wish that god be provable by whatever means necessary. Claims about reality are rarely provable via philosophy, mainly because you cannot think things into existence; the assertions of philosophy do not constitute evidence of an objective entity's existence, except in cases where they refer to objectively true facts about reality in doing so, in which case those facts are also testable and falsifiable via science.
[/quote]

(May 25, 2015 at 10:44 am)IATIA Wrote:

(May 25, 2015 at 10:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: First, it is possible to prove a negative. Show me a four-sided triangle...or prove to me that you can't. You CAN do it...tt's a philosophical proof based on contradiction.  Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

Not at all the same thing.  A "four-sided triangle" by definition, is not a triangle.

Your god is 'all-powerful', yet cannot make a rock so big that it cannot be moved.  Contradiction, therefore god does not exist.

Omnipotence means that God has infinite power and and is able to do anything that is logically possible. 

God cannot do something that is logically impossible, because such a task is meaningless. Making a square circle or a tall short person, like your two proposals, are examples of things that are not logically possible because they are in themselves contradictions.

God is perfection of all good things and able to do anything that is doable. A contradiction does not fall into that category of doable things.

(May 25, 2015 at 11:19 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm not going to go through it all again, but quite simply, the chances of the accounts being accurate I would say is well below 1%. So far below as to be negligible in fact. I would bet my life against £100 that if we could go back and see what happened, it would be significantly if not entirely different to the accounts. Yes, I mean that. The evidence is that weak.
...

The odds of the resurrection being true are exactly the same as the odds that Superman is real.

(May 25, 2015 at 10:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Wow. You truly are prescient. Or is it simply that the arguments in favor of Christianity are stock because they have no need of change? Let's go with that.

Third possibility: These arguments have no ability to change because there isn't any new evidence or discoveries that have been unearthed since their formulation and already the greatest Christian minds have spent 2,000 years and all the resources at their disposal so this is the best they can come up with.
Such as it is, this is all you can offer. 
I'm sure if Paul's handkerchief ever did turn up, Christian apologists everywhere would dump these arguments in favor of the hard evidence they now possess. 

Quote:Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

It depends on which god. The abstract notion of "God" as a creator of the cosmos is too much of an undefined being to disprove. Your god is another matter, precisely because of the paradoxes of its defined nature. If you wish to discuss the resurrection, which is the topic of our discussion, it is impossible to prove that it did NOT happen. That is not my job. You need to prove that it did happen.

Quote:the person claiming that X does not exist has the equal burden of proving his claim

You are not correct, especially with regard to extraordinary claims that fall outside our understanding of the natural universe.
If I say, "faeries don't exist", "Muhammad did not speak with the angel Gabriel", "9/11 was not an inside job", "aliens do not travel across the galaxy just to abduct people for sex experiments and make crop circles", I do not inherit the burden of proof. The lack of evidence and the extraordinary nature of the claims I'm denying put me well within the bounds of rational skepticism, even if I am making a positive claim of their non-existence or falsity. 
Which is not to say that's what I'm doing anyway. I'm simply telling you that you have not met the burden of proof. If Jesus did rise from the dead and fly up into the sky to be with his father god, he left behind no rational reason for anyone to think it really happened. 

Quote:"No, John, I'm not picking anything up on my scanners, either.", we're into philosophy.

Wrong again. You're making claims about history and the way our universe operates. 
If we were merely discussing the possibility that God (of some kind, not necessarily your idea of God) exists, this would be philosophy. 
If we're discussing "the historical reliability of the New Testament", that's a claim about history.

Quote:Thanks. Now explain how I have done this specifically. And we can get to your science-of-the-gaps later.

The filling in part is the crux of your arguments from incredulity. You ascribed "swoon theory" to skeptics, for example. You seem to think I'm responsible for explaining to you how Christianity began or how people might have been convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. I am not. Real skeptics don't get as far as discussing "swoon theory" or any other straw skeptic argument that theists like to bat with their wooden swords. We hear you tell a story and await evidence to believe it to be true. 

Quote:because miracles don't happen ...presupposition much?

And once again, you confuse "skepticism" with "denial". 
I've never seen any reason to believe miracles happen. From the moment I wake to the moment I sleep, the natural universe is all I have ever experienced. All claims of the existence of the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Things once explained by the supernatural have since been replaced with natural explanations. Never has a natural explanation been replaced with a proven supernatural one. 
It is therefore within the bounds of rational skepticism to assume we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood with science and reason. When you present evidence for miracles, I will consider them. 
Now YOU also operate by these same rules or else you couldn't possibly function for all the fretting you would do over all the invisible, undetectable dangers all around you that might exist. 
My three lunchtime scenarios should provide you with an explanation of how the burden of proof scales in accordance with probability and how mundane or extraordinary the claims are. Please take a moment to think about how much evidence you would require to believe each of these three scenarios:
1. I had lunch with my wife.
2. I had lunch with President Obama.
3. I had lunch with my deceased father who has been brought back to life.
How much evidence would you require to accept each of the above claims and why would the standards be different for each one? 
Seriously, think about that and give me your answers for each. 

Quote:Well, I'm starting to understand how your pre-suppositions stack the deck, if that's what you mean. 

No, these aren't MY presuppositions. These are the same rules YOU operate by in every area outside your favorite religious beliefs. 
This is how logic works. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

Quote:If there is a coherent thought in there, I can't find it. An editing problem, perhaps? Try again.

Sir, I don't know how to go any slower for you. I literally mapped it all out in a step-by-step format for you. To repeat:
1. You made an extraordinary claim (Jesus is resurrected from the dead)
2. You presented as evidence, alleged eye-witness accounts and philosophical arguments.
3. Eye-witness accounts are weak evidence and I explained why.
4. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence at all.
So, to sum up:
Extraordinary claims + Weak evidence = You fail to meet the burden of proof before I even begin my rebuttal because extraordinary claims require more than weak evidence.
I'm sorry if you're still not getting it. I don't know how to go any slower. 

(May 25, 2015 at 10:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

(May 25, 2015 at 10:45 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 25, 2015 at 10:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

And why hasn't Randy done due diligence in disproving them all, as well?

(May 25, 2015 at 11:06 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well.  If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims."  And where is his proof?

Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist.  A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind.  Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take.  It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.


This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true.  For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.


The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism.  His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.

Ah...the graveyard of the gods.

Just because some conceptions of god are fictional, does it necessarily follow that all of them are? Even Plato and Aristotle rejected the anthropomorphic deities like Zeus and Hercules in favor of a supreme being or god that created all of reality.

The theist believes that a god exists. Then, through reason or revelation or both, he narrows the scope of his investigation and chooses to believe in the God that most probably exists.

If you wish to prove that Christianity or theism belongs in the graveyard along with all of the failed gods and goddesses of the past, then provide some evidence as to why you believe that the God of classical theism has suffered the same fate as his mythological competitors.